97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words

97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words (2014-02-27). Anthony Watts posts a profound intellectual insight from his favourite denialist blow-hard, Lord Monckton. Shockingly, it seems that not every single climate paper is about the cause of the current rapid global temperature rise! Many of them don’t even mention the issue! Therefore no Global Warming.

In other equally profound news, the cause of Global Warming is never mentioned in surgical journals, more excellent proof that there is no Global Warming.

But wait, Monckton’s claim is that “Only 64 of 11,944 published since 1991 said most warming since 1950 was manmade: i.e. 0.5%” This means that 11,880 papers asserted that the warming has been natural! I’m looking forward to reading some of them.

Sadly for the loony Lord, no. The other climate papers about other subjects entirely.

Fixed it for ya, Monckton.

Fixed it for ya, Monckton. But don’t be so modest, you’re fourth author on that Science & Education paper!

20 thoughts on “97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words

  1. I had a quick look at phys.org. On the same basis as the good Lawd, gravity is a liberal conspiracy. Look at how many papers don’t mention that either. The MSM ignores the evidence. Without them tying us down we would be free to float away…

    [It’s called Intelligent Falling… – Ben]

  2. I just did a very quick and rough scan of 50 random medical journal papers and I am shocked! It would appear that not only does multiple sclerosis not exist, but 20 other serious diseases I can think of off the top of my head barely rate a mention. Its time to stop wasting taxpayers money on specialized education in medicine because its obviously perpetuating myths.

  3. Most importantly; do those other papers undermine the case for anthropogenic global warming, or support an alternative cause (or even point to no warming at all). My guess is that none of them does either.
    But I guess it’s fun with statistics, right?

  4. Guess what–many studies on climate change are examining it’s effect on ecological systems, which are already much greater than this ecologist would have expected based on the extent of warming and climate change so far. Alas, these studies are documenting an ecological catastrophe that is underway, but they have much to contribute about the causes of the climate change. We leave that up to the physcists.

  5. Oh my goodness, I am quite sure that none of us will ever see these catastrophic doomsday scenarios come to pass. You are all starting to look like those crazy street people trying to convince people that the end is near. I am convinced that it is not. You are convinced that it is. I feel sorry for the lot of you climate change soothe Sayers.

    [So YOUR blind certainty wins because of… reasons? A cogent argument. – Ben]

    • It seems your understanding of science is equivalent to your ability in English language.
      “… soothe Sayers.” Bwahahaha …

  6. Cheers! Hope all is well with you and that you continue the good work! I enjoy reading your witty rebuttals to good ol’ Watts (paid by Heartland…) who just recently took it into his kind little heart to aim his blog’s ‘death ray’ at little me. Not to say I’m shaking in my boots…

    [Thanks Robert! I’m still watching Anthony chase his own tail around his little sandbox. – Ben]

  7. The back and forth about the famous 97 % paper is like the old time serial thrillers. At the end of each episode somebody from either side would apparently die, but then we got to see the guy reborn to keep fighting for either good or evil.

    [I wish the denialists would stop recycling their stupidest story lines! – Ben]

  8. This is how it’s done Ben: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/23/an-extraordinary-meeting-of-climate-skeptics-and-climate-scientists-in-bath/
    But good luck with your unpleasantness and vanity.

    [I thought the way “it’s done” was to sit at the back of an actual public climate science talk, keeping your mouth firmly shut and your hands wedged under your ass. Like Anthony Watts a few days earlier on the same ‘scientific excursion’. But if you think self-congratulatory remarks from Anthony, that say absolutely nothing about any discussion, about a later dinner thick with denialists and a scattering of bemused climate scientists is a breakthrough I guess I have to take your word for it. Also, thanks for the good wishes! – Ben]

    • Unpleasantness and vanity continue unabated I see. [This, dear readers, is an example of the psychological phenomenon called projection. – Ben] Anthony said lots about the discussion, slide by slide in fact. [Anthony is very brave – after the fact when he can craft his misrepresentations at leisure and control the discussion. Even so, is a typical vapid Anthony remark like “Mauna Loa CO2 curve. Could you show us something we haven’t seen?” anything more than a truculent sneer? Seriously. – Ben] I was at the dinner and I recall nobody being “bemused” or anything being “thick” with anything; that’s paranoid even by your usual hysterical standards. I also don’t recall seeing you there and thus am intrigued as to how you arrive at your conclusions regarding either the dinner’s guests or atmospherics. [You are the great and powerful Oz! – Ben] But then, your arrival at your conclusions regarding anything to do with atmosphere has always been a puzzle. “Keeping your mouth firmly shut” is something you might wish to try. That way you can keep your foot out of it. [Big finish, with whipped cream and sprinkles! – Ben]

      • The goof-ball dinner you are clinging to is just another in a long line of pathetic denialist attempts to fabricate credibility. Tame fake science journals packed with denialist allies. “Scientific papers” published by political think tanks. “International conferences” attended by the same 20 cranks and political operatives. “Petitions” from thousands of self-identifying PhD holders. Hijacked sub-subcommittees of credible scientific societies issuing comical claims that sound like the class clown locking himself into school PA broadcast room.

        You want some more insights into your cozy dinner? There’s this curious bridge-building declaration from one of your fellow diners: “Both sides are really fed up with the outrageous alarmists who are not representing science properly.” What a laugh! You can also try here and here. The Guardian’s rather naive reportage showed denialists trying to position themselves as statesmanly and the true scientists as enjoying the food.

        • Ben. How about a post on the latest cop-out now going the establishment rounds. Quote,”I’m not a scientist so I can’t comment”, is currently the favoured response by climate denialist politicians in the USA, it seems.

          ‘I’m Not A Scientist’: A Complete Guide To Politicians Who Plead Ignorance On Climate Change

          [It’s pretty funny how they all latched on the the same, hypocritical, catch-phrase. But I guess it sounds better than saying “I’m incompetent.” – Ben]

        • “Tame fake science journals packed with denialist allies. “Scientific papers” published by political think tanks. “International conferences” attended by the same 20 cranks and political operatives. “Petitions” from thousands of self-identifying PhD holders.” And risible, circle-jerk blogs published by hockey store warehousemen.

          [When I read the “risible, circle-jerk blogs” bit it seemed you were talking about Anthony & Co., who are carving an ever-tighter orbit around their own anuses. The “hockey store” reference is just garden-variety, albeit obscure, paranoid anti-science. So… I hurt your feelings by laughing at denialist ignorance and malicious hypocrisy? – Ben]

      • “Steve” says:

        “I was at the dinner”

        Funny, AW does not identify anyone called “Steve”. Why are you deniers so dishonest? Why are you afraid to admit your true identity? Does that mean that you know you are being dishonest and would be embarrassed if your friends and colleagues knew your views?

  9. Sad, sad site. An entire blog for negative comments about another blog with a comment section of its own. Your life is too valuable to waste this way. My life is too valuable to come back and reread my comment in hopes I’ve trolled a response.

    [Yes, I should shut up and let Anthony Watts’ malicious statements go unchallenged. Oh drat, you’ll never read my self-justification! – Ben]

  10. You could also have mentioned the reception given by denialist blogs like WaUWT when their ‘scientific authority’ is questioned. Just pointing out the results of an interesting but contrary paper can get you excoriated by ad hominem, then summarily dismissed from further commenting.

    But there again Watts’ Snake Oil is a nice little earner with the huge number of hits his website gets, and nobody in their right mind puts out a recall on a product that sells so well.

    [So true! – Ben]

  11. I’m a little confused! Please help! Can you explain this???

    “The ‘97% consensus’ article is poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed. It obscures the complexities of the climate issue and it is a sign of the desperately poor level of public and policy debate in this country [UK] that the energy minister should cite it.“ – Mike Hulme, Ph.D. Professor of Climate Change, University of East Anglia (UEA)

    I don’t know who to believe … YOU or this guy from UEA.

    WHY would he say that? :)

    [This next bit is an addendum posted one minute later – Ben]

    If you can explain that away, then your whole site is valid and I’m sorry for doubting what you write on it, but if you can’t well, you probably should stop writing about the ‘consensus’.

    [Yes, it’s HIM or ME. No other option. But if I had to interpret your quote from Dr. Hulme, I’d say that he simply didn’t like the design of a particular survey of the opinions of climate science experts. Do you think he’s trying to say that there is NO broad scientific agreement about human impact on our climate? I’d love to see your song and dance for that claim.

    Regarding the “desperately poor level of public and policy debate” I submit that climate scientists are reluctant to engage the public because of the certainty of malicious and dishonest personal attacks from denialists, and that politicians willing to act in the public interest tend to latch onto simplistic deflections of their mendacious opponents. We dearly need rational, fact-based contributions to the climate change debate but this is precisely what the denialists have done their utmost to impede. – Ben]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s